![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some much-longer-than I expected thoughts on the Democratic primary
It feels like I should call this post "my very preliminary thoughts on the Democratic primary", but with something like 25 people running is that ridiculous? Anyway, in the scheme of things it's still way early, but with the first debate coming up soonish, and many thoughts swirling around in my head, I wanted to set them down in some sort of order. Especially since, unlike most other topics relating to politics, my local friend circle has not been discussing this issue at all, which feels kind of weird, really. Maybe we're all avoiding the topic because of our trauma from last time.
Anyway. So I haven't decided on a candidate yet, but there are folks I'm more and less interested in, and a few "oh hell noes". Of course, it should go without saying that I will support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, because I would support a fiery hat of bees over the current occupant of the White House. But I feel compelled to say it anyway, because it seems like almost any time someone expresses an opinion about the candidates, the trolls descend to demand the disclaimer -- especially if it's a negative opinion about one of the white dudes, funny how that works. So anyway, disclaimer made, and here we go.
Roughly in order of my current interest in them as of this writing:
I was lukewarm on Elizabeth Warren at first. I had concerns about her age, her divisiveness in certain quarters, her somewhat limited political experience (she's only been in politics for a decade), the way she botched handling the Native American ancestry issue. But she has slowly but surely been winning me over, with her focus on policy, her detailed plans for every single thing, the fact that she has a plan for actually implementing these plans, her energy, her fire. If you forced me to say I was supporting any one person right now, she's probably who I'd pick.
Kamala Harris was my early favorite, and she's definitely still in the mix. In part, of course, that's familiarity -- she was my city's DA, and then my state's attorney general, and I was pleased to support her each time, then thrilled to put her in the US Senate. If I have any regret about her running, it's that she didn't do a full turn through the Senate first, because her leadership there has been so important. Obviously, I do not agree with every decision she ever made as my elected official. I think the way you feel about Harris has a lot to do with how you feel about the best way to influence systems. She's been quite clear that she felt like she needed to be a little tougher than she would have preferred, to build a base of power inside the criminal justice system, as a woman, as a person of color. And I don't think she's wrong about that. So the question is: do you prefer to agitate against bad systems from the outside, or work from the inside to make them better? Personally, I think you need people on both routes; she chose the latter, and in my opinion she had some success. She's continued to impress me with her policy positions and her style, and she remains in my top tier of potential candidates.
I'm also intrigued by Julian Castro and Kirsten Gillibrand. Both of them have strong policy plans and seem like they could be exciting campaigners. I want to hear more from both of them, and I really hope they both make the debates. Gillibrand is the only candidate I've given any money so far, for a few reasons. First, I appreciate the way she's campaigned openly as a woman and as a mom, making clear how those two aspects of her identity have affected her policy positions. Second, she's shown herself able to grow and change as her constituency changes (see for example how her position on gun control evolved when she stopped representing a more conservative district in upstate New York and began serving as the senator for the whole state). Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it makes me super angry that people blame her for Al Franken's resignation, and especially that big-money Democratic donors are reportedly punishing her for that. Gillibrand has been strong and consistent in being a person who stands up for women who have been sexually assaulted -- how could she have done otherwise? And let's not forget that many other high-profile Senators also spoke up. The fact that Gillibrand takes the heat for this -- and still does, RIP anyone's mentions who brings her up on Twitter or Facebook -- rather than, oh, how about maybe Al Franken himself? Ugh. I burn with rage.
Anyway, Gillibrand was also the first candidate to bring up universal childcare, and I want her to get a fair shake, and she's in real danger of not making the debate stage, so if you're looking for somewhere to throw a few dollars, you could do a lot worse.
Then we get to the people who might get more of my interest, if they make some changes or break out in the debates in a big way, but I have some level of difference with all of them. Cory Booker is a little too "let's reach across the aisle and all get along and govern with love!" for my tastes right now. Yeah, it worked for Barack Obama, but a lot has changed since 2008. Amy Klobuchar is more of a moderate than I'd prefer. I appreciate the role Jay Inslee might play as a single-issue climate change candidate, and is the only white guy I'd like to see getting more traction. But single-issue candidates are rarely a good bet for my vote. I flirted with supporting Mayor Pete for a little while, but he's even more moderate than Klobuchar, he's super light on actual policy proposals, and he just doesn't have enough experience. (All that said, I appreciate that a gay man has made such inroads in the polls and with the political press. He was on the cover of Time magazine with his husband, and this was not remarkable. That is progress.)
Next is the ever-growing parade of interchangeable white guys, which. Seriously? You all looked at this amazing diverse field of women and men of color with strong experience, and thought "but no, what the world needs is me, me, me!" I am not bothering to pay attention to any of you unless you have a earth-shaking breakout at the debates.
Also no: Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson. No. More. Amateurs. The presidency is not an entry-level position, a truth which the last two years have made abundently clear.
Tulsi Gabbard is my actual last choice. Sorry, I'm not voting for anyone who's cozied up to Assad and displayed that level of homophobia.
So that brings us to Biden and Bernie. Joe Biden clearly has the experience, but he's got two huge strikes against him: his age and his determination to pretend that the Republicans have just been mislead by 45 and if we make Biden president, everything will "get back to normal". First, that's a blatant lie, and given that Biden witnessed GOP obstructionism first hand as Obama's vice president, he has to know it. Second, it's not like "normal" was all that great in the first place. We need a way forward, not a careful walk backwards.
As for Bernie, he lost me, hard, in 2016, and has done basically zero of the work he would need to do to bring me back. And frankly, I don't seem him doing it.
If you don't want to talk about this yet, I entirely understand, but I also welcome conversation. Who do you like, and why? We can also talk about who you don't like, but overall I'd like to keep the conversation more positive. One thing I'd rather not get into is this nebulous (and usually sexist and often racist) concept of "electability". You know what makes someone electable? If we elect them. That could be anyone at this point. We've got a long ways to go, and whoever we choose can win, if we do the work to get them there.
Anyway. So I haven't decided on a candidate yet, but there are folks I'm more and less interested in, and a few "oh hell noes". Of course, it should go without saying that I will support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, because I would support a fiery hat of bees over the current occupant of the White House. But I feel compelled to say it anyway, because it seems like almost any time someone expresses an opinion about the candidates, the trolls descend to demand the disclaimer -- especially if it's a negative opinion about one of the white dudes, funny how that works. So anyway, disclaimer made, and here we go.
Roughly in order of my current interest in them as of this writing:
I was lukewarm on Elizabeth Warren at first. I had concerns about her age, her divisiveness in certain quarters, her somewhat limited political experience (she's only been in politics for a decade), the way she botched handling the Native American ancestry issue. But she has slowly but surely been winning me over, with her focus on policy, her detailed plans for every single thing, the fact that she has a plan for actually implementing these plans, her energy, her fire. If you forced me to say I was supporting any one person right now, she's probably who I'd pick.
Kamala Harris was my early favorite, and she's definitely still in the mix. In part, of course, that's familiarity -- she was my city's DA, and then my state's attorney general, and I was pleased to support her each time, then thrilled to put her in the US Senate. If I have any regret about her running, it's that she didn't do a full turn through the Senate first, because her leadership there has been so important. Obviously, I do not agree with every decision she ever made as my elected official. I think the way you feel about Harris has a lot to do with how you feel about the best way to influence systems. She's been quite clear that she felt like she needed to be a little tougher than she would have preferred, to build a base of power inside the criminal justice system, as a woman, as a person of color. And I don't think she's wrong about that. So the question is: do you prefer to agitate against bad systems from the outside, or work from the inside to make them better? Personally, I think you need people on both routes; she chose the latter, and in my opinion she had some success. She's continued to impress me with her policy positions and her style, and she remains in my top tier of potential candidates.
I'm also intrigued by Julian Castro and Kirsten Gillibrand. Both of them have strong policy plans and seem like they could be exciting campaigners. I want to hear more from both of them, and I really hope they both make the debates. Gillibrand is the only candidate I've given any money so far, for a few reasons. First, I appreciate the way she's campaigned openly as a woman and as a mom, making clear how those two aspects of her identity have affected her policy positions. Second, she's shown herself able to grow and change as her constituency changes (see for example how her position on gun control evolved when she stopped representing a more conservative district in upstate New York and began serving as the senator for the whole state). Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it makes me super angry that people blame her for Al Franken's resignation, and especially that big-money Democratic donors are reportedly punishing her for that. Gillibrand has been strong and consistent in being a person who stands up for women who have been sexually assaulted -- how could she have done otherwise? And let's not forget that many other high-profile Senators also spoke up. The fact that Gillibrand takes the heat for this -- and still does, RIP anyone's mentions who brings her up on Twitter or Facebook -- rather than, oh, how about maybe Al Franken himself? Ugh. I burn with rage.
Anyway, Gillibrand was also the first candidate to bring up universal childcare, and I want her to get a fair shake, and she's in real danger of not making the debate stage, so if you're looking for somewhere to throw a few dollars, you could do a lot worse.
Then we get to the people who might get more of my interest, if they make some changes or break out in the debates in a big way, but I have some level of difference with all of them. Cory Booker is a little too "let's reach across the aisle and all get along and govern with love!" for my tastes right now. Yeah, it worked for Barack Obama, but a lot has changed since 2008. Amy Klobuchar is more of a moderate than I'd prefer. I appreciate the role Jay Inslee might play as a single-issue climate change candidate, and is the only white guy I'd like to see getting more traction. But single-issue candidates are rarely a good bet for my vote. I flirted with supporting Mayor Pete for a little while, but he's even more moderate than Klobuchar, he's super light on actual policy proposals, and he just doesn't have enough experience. (All that said, I appreciate that a gay man has made such inroads in the polls and with the political press. He was on the cover of Time magazine with his husband, and this was not remarkable. That is progress.)
Next is the ever-growing parade of interchangeable white guys, which. Seriously? You all looked at this amazing diverse field of women and men of color with strong experience, and thought "but no, what the world needs is me, me, me!" I am not bothering to pay attention to any of you unless you have a earth-shaking breakout at the debates.
Also no: Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson. No. More. Amateurs. The presidency is not an entry-level position, a truth which the last two years have made abundently clear.
Tulsi Gabbard is my actual last choice. Sorry, I'm not voting for anyone who's cozied up to Assad and displayed that level of homophobia.
So that brings us to Biden and Bernie. Joe Biden clearly has the experience, but he's got two huge strikes against him: his age and his determination to pretend that the Republicans have just been mislead by 45 and if we make Biden president, everything will "get back to normal". First, that's a blatant lie, and given that Biden witnessed GOP obstructionism first hand as Obama's vice president, he has to know it. Second, it's not like "normal" was all that great in the first place. We need a way forward, not a careful walk backwards.
As for Bernie, he lost me, hard, in 2016, and has done basically zero of the work he would need to do to bring me back. And frankly, I don't seem him doing it.
If you don't want to talk about this yet, I entirely understand, but I also welcome conversation. Who do you like, and why? We can also talk about who you don't like, but overall I'd like to keep the conversation more positive. One thing I'd rather not get into is this nebulous (and usually sexist and often racist) concept of "electability". You know what makes someone electable? If we elect them. That could be anyone at this point. We've got a long ways to go, and whoever we choose can win, if we do the work to get them there.
no subject
THIS. SO much. YES. Especially with Bernie--- he has the perfect avenue for that: "Yes, look at all these candidates embracing my positions! I'm so proud to have been such an influence! I'm going to cheer on the younger generation and pass the torch while I still have time to enjoy watching them run with it!" But, no, alas, as you say, it's about his own ego.
no subject